Letters to your Reps

This is a discussion on Letters to your Reps within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hey guys and Gals,
I thought that with everything that is going on it may be a good idea to get a thread going with ...

Letters to your Reps

Hey guys and Gals,
I thought that with everything that is going on it may be a good idea to get a thread going with something akin to a form letter to be sent to our Reps both state and federal. I figured that it would get more letters written, and allow those people who don't have the time, knowledge, resources, etc to let their Reps know what is on their minds and that they will be held accountable to their constituencies for their stances and votes. Plus we strike while the iron is hot!! It would be great if we could get one of the Mods or an Admin to make it a sticky in the Second Amendment and Legislation sub-forum. I will also list the couple of websites I know of that will email the letters for you all you have to do is fill out some info and copy the letter you want to send or use the provided form letter. FYI: I copied these off of other websites including this one, so all of the wording is not mine. I did do a quick scan for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors but I can't promise that I didn't miss anything. If anyone has another letter that they wish to make available to everyone feel free to PM it to me and I will post it in the OP. Whatcha y'all think?

I am writing as your constituent in the [District Number] district of the [Your State] House of Representatives/Senate. We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution with talks of using executive power to enforce a gun ban. The liberties of the people of this great State and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away! The overreach of the federal administrations do not align with the Constitution, and I feel that actions should be taken by our State to secure our freedoms under the Constitution, specifically in concern to the 2nd Amendment. As you might have heard, recently the state of Wyoming took actions by introducing H.B. 0104 "Firearm Protection Act". It is an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms or ammunition or ammunition components shall be unenforceable in the state of Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date. A full view of this bill can be found here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Int...4.pdf By way of the 10th Amendment, the people of [Your State], and our Rights, can be protected by a similar Bill. Our heritage, and our future is what is at stake. I urge you to consider this matter, and request a response at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your service and your time
Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Phone Number]

Letters to Federal Reps:

Format these letters just as the one above as far as date, address, etc go.1)

Honorable (Senator, Congressman, Representative),

I would like to remind you that when you took office, you swore an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …”
I also remind you that our Constitution includes the 2nd Amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The right to keep and bear arms was considered so fundamental to a free people that it was the Second Amendment. Second only to freedom of religion and free speech. I also remind you that it guaranteed the right of the people to keep and bear, what were at the time, state-of-the-art military weapons.

Any elected official who proposes, or supports, any legislation that attempts to overturn or limit the Second Amendment is in violation of their oath and they must be removed from office. Their act must be considered an act of Treason against the United States of America and should be prosecuted as such. I expect you to stand firm in support of the Constitution, to honor your oath and to denounce the traitors for what they are. By "any legislation", I consider this to include any sort of so-called 'assault weapons' ban, 'high-capacity' magazine ban, gun registration, outrageous ammunition tax, private weapons sales government intervention, face-to-face only ammunition sales, any type of gun registration and/or any other infringement.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and the misinformation campaign against the American public. I will not register any weapon I currently own, nor any I acquire in the future. It is not the government's right to know what I own.

Common sense and statistics both prove that gun restrictions do not save innocent lives. Restricting people from the right and responsibility to protect themselves and others by establishing "Gun-Free Zones" is one of the most irresponsible and asinine regulations our government has ever imposed. A true law maker, representing the American people, should be doing everything in his/her power to remove such foolish and unsafe regulations. So far, I have seen very little support or discussion from Washington to do just this.
You answer to the American people; you work for us, you are our employee. I suggest you seriously consider the oath you took, because the voters such as myself - will hold you accountable for your actions in this regard.
Another problem I've seen with with today's politicians is the fact that they never seem to give a second of their time for the people they are supposed to be working for. They reply to emails and letters with some simple, standardized, form letter, one-size-fits-all, for each particular issue. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

2)
Dear Representative:
I hope this letter finds you and your family well and in good spirits.

I have up to this day never taken the opportunity to write an elected representative. I realize now that given the urgency of our times and the egregious actions of some representatives in the House and Senate I am compelled to voice my grave concerns.

The horrors of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings are continued proof that the 1995 “Gun-Free” School Zones Act is an absolute failure. It has done nothing to preclude gun violence in our schools, on the contrary, it has given the criminally insane the motivation and *opportunity* to shed innocent blood.

Some salient facts for your consideration:
• Mass GFZ shootings have increased 370% since the GFSZA was implemented.
• Adam Lanza violated 41 separate laws during his shooting spree.
• Connecticut is in the top 5 of the states with strictest gun laws.
• Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws in the nation, racked up a whopping 532 murders in 2012 - more than military deaths in Afghanistan.

More gun control is not the answer. To the contrary, it is proof that it is time to repeal the “Victim Zones” created by the GFSZA. Any further support of GFSZA is a criminal act. We protect our money with armed guards, but allow our most precious "jewels", OUR children to attend schools with no protection whatsoever. This must end....

Anti-gun organizations and morally corrupt politicians are seizing on the opportunity to push for more gun control and trample our constitutional rights. In reality, this push is about controlling “We The People”, not controlling guns.
Governments have been responsible for at least 170 million civilian deaths in the 20th century. It *always* starts with gun registration and control. Do not advance this hellish legacy.
Do NOT allow more gun control. Honor your Oath of Office. Make NO compromises.

Evil always exists – it can only be vanquished with vigilance and due force. Evil cannot be “legislated” away.

I urge you to do three things:

One - Oppose ANY new gun restrictions, in any degree or form. Make Senator Feinstein's unconstitutional restrictions DOA. Shut down all HR bills that attempt any form of control. Do NOT allow Senators McCain and Reid to change the senate rules on filibustering.

Two - Repeal ALL CURRENT Unconstitutional "laws" which infringe on our rights to bear arms. Repeal ineffective, murder-enabling “laws”. Remove the Victim Zones.

Three - Introduce or co-sponsor favorable supporting Second Amendment legislation to reinforce the permanence and constitutionality of the Second Amendment. Inclusive of all the safety recommendations made by the NRA in Wayne LA Pierre’s speech a few weeks ago.

My community, family, friends and myself will be watching your actions, and will vote, donate and campaign accordingly.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” --George Washington

I e-mailed my senators and representative and I know my state representative is pro gun control and Senator King going to
support some sort of ban.I went on his comments today on CBS Early Morning Show.He's one of the few independents in the Senate but unfortunatley he sounds more like a Democrat.He didn't allude to mental health problems that started when he was Govenor!I wouldn't be suprise if the President sees how much he can get from the congress and the items that falls short he tries using Executive orders to accomplish changes he wants.Remember the president comes from Illinos one of the most repressive laws in United States.

I would like to start out by congratulating the Reps of Missouri who have co-sponsored Rep. Casey Guernsey's HB-170 to protect Missouri's Second Amendment rights and our right to protect ourselves as well as our families; as well as our teachers' rights to protect our children while they are in their care. I would encourage you in the strongest possible manner to support this bill and vote for it with no deletions. If you did not specifically co-sponsor this bill or, do not support it, I would encourage you to listen to your constituency. This is what the people want, need, and deserve. Protect us from the Federal Gov't overstepping their bounds. I, my, family, friends, and acquaintances all vote, represent us, we will vote accordingly next election.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” --George Washington

I am writing you today to remind you of your sworn oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States of America. This includes the 2nd amendment to that constitution. As a elected official I urge you to defend our constitution from those that wish to destroy it. The events that took place in Connecticut are tragic and took an emotional toll on this nation, but do not let this senseless act vilify law abiding citizens who own guns. If we allow for the 2nd amendment to be changed then we have no respect for that constitution or what it stands for. Banning rifles that are considered by uneducated and misinformed people as “assault weapons” only weakens the foundation of our constitution, the foundation in which this country was created for and what our forefathers wanted for this great nation. You have an opportunity to support, strengthen and defend the principles that the United States has stood for over the past 235 years. To do otherwise will only divide this country in ways that can only cripple it further. Our constitution was created in a way that all the original amendments to the constitution support one another, there was a reason that the fathers of our nation did this, so that tyranny cannot and will not overcome or destroy the nation that they created for you and I. Over the course of the history of the United States the 2nd Amendment has protected its citizens from the threat of invasion by the Japanese during World War II and prevented the British from retaking the colonies during the War of 1812. It has protected citizens and helped them defend their families and property on countless occasions. Since the Bush era assault weapons ban was repealed gun crime in this country has declined and death due to the use of firearms is one of the lowest causes of death in the United States in violent acts of murder. Please take the time to fully explore all the facts and statistics and do not rush to judgment on any bill that you vote on that will directly impact the 2nd amendment. Please do not let political pressure from anyone sway your vote approving changes to the 2nd amendment. Please do defend and protect the constitution of the United States of America.

A quick note,On the CBS Morning Show a reporter of course as about gun control and I quote,"The democrats have 6 seats
in the house we incumbent got 42% of the vote and there's no way Harry Reid going bring gun control up.'
I think all the e mails are starting to work and educating the anti 's that are receptive.

I sent an email today to Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), expressing concern and disappointment in how he is suddenly going the opposite way as to what he said about gun rights prior to his election to the Senate.

Here is the "canned" response that I got. I'm not holding out any hope he will actually read, and comprehend what I wrote, but hey, it doesn't hurt to try.

I have received your e-mail and look forward to responding to you soon. If you are a West Virginian, and need my immediate assistance with a personal matter, please don't hesitate to call my office. If you call after-hours, please leave a detailed message, and a member of my staff will get back to you promptly. Thank you for contacting me, and please know that it is my great pleasure and honor to serve the people of West Virginia in the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Joe Manchin III
US Senator

I need to write to Nick Joe Rahall (D-WV) in the House of Representatives, one other Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) has openly stated she will try to block any attempt by the O administration to ban or restrict the rights of citizens to have firearms. Nicky Joe seems to be a fence rider on this issue. Maybe with luck, he might come over from the anti camp.

Consider the actual list of features mentioned in the '94 legislation.

Collapsible stocks do not make a firearm deadlier. They allow the weapon's overall length to be reduced a few inches at most for ease of transit and to find a more comfortable shooting position. Folding stocks function similarly, make firearms significantly shorter for transit but removing the ability to control a long gun with the third and most important point of contact (against the body to create a stable firing platform). Use of a firearm with the stock folded makes the firearm much less controllable.

Pistol grips do not make a firearm deadlier. They make rifles more ergonomic, especially for those with limited hand or wrist mobility.

Flash hiders do not make a firearm deadlier. They reduce the likelihood of the shooter being blinded by the muzzle blast from their shot. As the vast majority of instances where a law abiding citizen is threatened by a criminal occur at night, the reduction of muzzle flash is virtually a safety feature for the one defending themselves or others (civilian and law enforcement alike).

Barrel shrouds do not make a firearm deadlier. They protect the user's hands from being burned by a hot barrel.

A bayonet mount does not make a firearm deadlier. If anything, they are functionally useless for civilians and criminals alike; collectors still enjoy having the mounts available on weapons, though, and the military still requires the capability of mounting a bayonet to be present on their standard issue rifles and carbines.

Muzzle devices capable of launching grenades not only do not make a firearm deadlier (by not changing the function at all), but this provision moves squarely into the legal realm of the National Firearms Act, which already governs transfer of destructive devices.

"High capacity magazines" are almost an entirely separate topic. Before 1994, they largely did not exist; it was seen as practical and prudent to provide as much capacity as the firearm could reasonably hold. Some large drums did exist, but were extremely expensive and notoriously unreliable (both still true today). Tragically, it was the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007 that demonstrated the futility of restricting magazine size: the shooter carried nineteen magazines and showed the wherewithal to reload. The Virginia Tech Review Panel specifically investigated whether the '94 Assault Weapon Ban would have made a difference in the Virginia Tech Massacre. "The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal [during the ban] would not have made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid reloaders could have been about as deadly in this situation."

There are a few more, but I hope by now my point is clear: the '94 Assault Weapon Ban not only failed to curb crime as it was intended, but it placed restrictions on law abiding citizens.

In any instance where the freedoms of US citizens may be limited, by any amount, the onus is on the legislature to prove that such limitations are necessary for the public good. As indicated by the research mentioned, the efforts of the legislators supporting the '94 law amounted to nothing more than unnecessary restrictions on cosmetic features of firearms that were still perfectly legal to purchase, own, and use. In some cases the features are ergonomic improvements. In other cases they are virtually safety features. In the case of magazines, no evidence suggests a magazine restriction would mitigate the damage a spree shooter can cause. The list of specifically banned firearms is a slap in the face to the intelligence of Americans, prohibiting one business from selling the same product as another business simply because of their company and product name.

Senator, I strongly urge you to not support any attempt at renewing similar legislation. The original ban protected no one, and as tragic and terrible as cases like the Sandy Hook shooting are, they are also extremely rare; I believe at last count a dozen total spree shootings have occurred throughout US history. Compare this to the 120+ children who die in our state every year from abuse and neglect, and many more from drowning while supervised by parents and caretakers. If protecting our youth is the goal, legislation like that proposed by Senator Feinstein will fall well-short of the mark.

This is a little tough to read because I simply took a pic with my phone. It is the response I received in the mail today after contacting Arkansas Senator Boozman. I am sure it is a robotic response but hopefully is his actual views.

I'm posting the letter I just sent all of my representatives in case it helps someone write their own letter. The first item is the actual letter I sent. However, I've also included a longer version which I could not send due to the length limitations in the submissions systems.

Sent version:

Dear _____,

I ask that you DO NOT support further restrictions on the types of firearms that law abiding citizens may own, nor place additional restrictions on who may legally own firearms.

The Oklahoma City Bombing killed 19 children under the age of six. Violent people will find ways to hurt others be it with a firearm, bomb, plane, Sarin, machete or a tanker truck full of gasoline.

We should strive to reduce the number of people who feel inclined to harm others by working to increase the health of our society. Specifically:

1) Support economic health.
2) Access to mental health assistance for those who want it.

Since we cannot eliminate all instances of those wishing to harm others we should also take defensive measures. Specifically:

3) Make provisions that armed police (or other properly trained staff) be available for schools who desire active protection measures.
4) Make provisions to allow schools to increase their physical protection against determined intruders.

We all have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. I think most would agree the concept of self-determination is a primary tenant of our country, hopefully “self-evident”. The provision for security and self-defense is inseparable from self-determination.

There is no other method of defense that allows a grandmother to protect her grandchildren from thugs with a reasonable probability for success than a firearm. Take the firearm out of the equation and the strong prevail over the weak.

The unthinkable horror and the media's relentless coverage of recent events give the impression that these types of events are common. In reality these events are statistically rare and very low in relationship to other risks in our society.

One troubling recent assertion is that certain types of firearms or magazine capacities have no purpose other than to “kill a lot of people very quickly”. Police carry AR-15 style rifles with 30 round magazines when in dangerous situations. Clearly they are not attempting to “kill a lot of people very quickly”. The same goes for any other individual wishing to defend themselves. It simply provides the ability to defend against more significant threats as well as provide a deterrent.

This capability allowed store-owners to defend their livelihood during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.

If you were a rural rancher your home was assaulted by number of armed assailants, a rifle like those used by police is likely the only thing that gives you any sort of chance of survival.

While changing the requirements for personal sales sounds unobtrusive at first, consider – should the government really be involved if you wish to give a firearm you own to your spouse or to your child? In my opinion the analogy is alcohol sales. It is your responsibility not to give alcohol you purchase to minors.

Another prohibition, or “war on gun owners”, not only will likely have no positive impact on violence in this country, it will likely further damage the health of our society by disenfranchising more people. It might even spawn a new criminal enterprise smuggling or manufacturing firearms. Consider the modern firearm is over 100 year old technology and right now small machine shops across the United States are building some of the most advanced and precision firearms in the world.

People have a right to self-determination and self-defense. The firearm is a tool in this to protect these rights. Different types of firearms only serve to allow the individual to protect against different threats.

Please protect our rights.

Thank you,
John N
Bothell, WA

Original version:

Dear ____,

In light of recent tragedies such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I understand and applaud that legislators will be looking for ways to avoid such tragedy in the future.

In this endeavor, I ask that you do not support further restrictions on the types of firearms that law abiding citizens may own, nor place additional restrictions on who may legally own firearms.

We do not have a problem with firearms violence in this country, rather, we have a problem with violence. Placing restrictions on things will not avoid violence, or potentially, even the access of those things to those who would commit violence.

We should not forget that the Oklahoma City Bombing killed 19 children under the age of six. Violent people will find ways to hurt others be it with a firearm, bomb, plane, Sarin, machete or a tanker truck full of gasoline.

While I believe that we will always have some percentage of people that will wish to do others harm, I believe the best way to reduce violence in this country is to reduce the number of people who feel inclined to harm others.

I feel the most effective way to accomplish this is with a happier and healthier society. Some concrete steps toward this end might be:

We need to be very mindful of the civil rights of those with mental illness,
however it should be easy for those who wish assistance to receive it.

The widening partisan divide in our country should concern us. In many ways it means almost everyone feels disaffected and contributes to the ill health of our society. Further restrictions on firearm ownership would only further alienate a significant portion of our population and aggravate, not help the problem.

Since steps towards a healthier society are long term goals and will not eliminate all instances of those wishing to harm others, I suggest we also take steps to protect against those who would seek to do harm.

3) Make provisions that armed police (or other properly trained staff) be available for schools who desire active protection measures.

Passive defense systems will only provide so much protection. For schools
who wish the active protection armed police can provide, we should ensure
they have that option.

4) Make provisions to allow schools to increase their physical protection against determined intruders.

While schools typically have many barrier related defensive systems,
many of them are not oriented toward the truly determined attacker
and we should ensure the funding and technical guidance for those
who wish it.

While I support the Second Amendment for the stated purpose, I would like to suggest the protection of firearm ownership in the United States goes even deeper.

We all have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. We can summarize this as the right to self-determination. I think most would agree the concept of self-determination is a primary tenant of our country, hopefully “self-evident”.

The provision for security and self-defense is inseparable from self-determination. We know the police have no duty to protect individuals. And rightly so. It is not possible for the police to be everywhere and it only takes seconds for harm to befall someone. We all are personally responsibility for our safety.

In the context of self-defense, the firearm represents equality. There is no other method of defense that allows a grandmother to protect her grandchildren from thugs with anywhere the same probability for success than a firearm. Take the firearm out of the equation and the strong prevail over the weak.

Infringing on the individuals right for self-defense should be be as unthinkable as infringing on their right to free speech. Some have suggested that we have limits on speech such as not being able to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, but miss that this is not a restriction on free speech, but rather on what people do with that speech, just as it is not legal for someone to assault someone with their motor vehicle. The key is in this country, people automatically have rights but they can lose those rights if they endanger others. We don't prohibit someone from speaking because what they might say.

Clearly the horror of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is immense. I have deep sympathy for those affected. The unthinkable horror of this event and the media's relentless coverage of this and other acts of violence give the impression that these types of events are common and that we are in the middle of an epidemic of violence. In reality these events are statistically rare, and very low in relationship to other risks in our society. Even a quick Internet search suggests murder rates are at a 30-40 year low(1). Consider that concurrently, gun ownership is up(2), and indeed while lawful concealed carry rates are up(3).

A number of troubling suggestions have been made in the news recently. One of which is that certain types of firearms or magazine capacities have no purpose other than to “kill a lot of people very quickly”. The important purpose of these types of firearms like any other firearm is the defense of one's life and livelihood. In short, the defense of their pursuit of happiness.

Police carry AR-15 style rifles with 30 round magazines when in dangerous situations. Clearly they are not attempting to “kill a lot of people very quickly”. The same goes for any other individual wishing to defend themselves. It simply provides the ability to defend against more significant threats as well as provide a deterrent.

Witness the ability of the store-owners to defend their livelihood during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots(4). Contrast that with the difficulties of the police to subdue the bank robbers in the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout(5).

If you were a rural rancher your home was assaulted by number of armed assailants, a rifle like those used by police is likely the only thing that gives you any sort of chance of survival. In what way would it be moral for us to deny someone their right to defend themselves to the best of their ability?

Conversely, as sickening as it is to think about, it is likely a strong person could have murdered an adult and 20 plus children trapped in a school room with a machete. Indeed, some of the most sickening atrocities in recent history have occurred with a cheap piece of steel(6).

Another issue that has been receiving a lot of press lately is the so-called “gun show loophole”, or more accurately, the lack of government background check requirement for private sales. While changing this approach sounds unobtrusive at first glance, consider – should the government really be involved if you wish to give a firearm you own to your spouse or to your child? In my opinion the analogy is alcohol sales. It is your responsibility not to give alcohol you purchase to minors. In Washington state many individuals already employ a common sense approach avoid selling to ineligible buyers by checking they have a current concealed weapons permit.

We now have a fair amount of evidence prohibition is not effective in the United States. Our 1919 prohibition of alcohol didn't prevent people from obtaining alcohol. Our several decade old “war on drugs” shows no sign of reducing drug use and has the unfortunate side effect of creating a large and entrenched criminal enterprise.

Another prohibition, or “war on gun owners”, not only will likely have no positive impact on violence in this country, it will likely further damage the health of our society by disenfranchising more people. It might even spawn a new criminal enterprise smuggling or manufacturing firearms. Consider the modern firearm is over 100 year old technology and right now small machine shops across the United States are building some of the most advanced and precision firearms in the world.

People have a right to self-determination and self-defense. The firearm is a tool in this to protect these rights. Different types of firearms only serve to allow the individual to protect against different threats.

As a retired school teacher and NRA Concealed Firearms instructor I am very concerned about recent government proposals to further restrict my 2nd Amendment rights.
I feel that restricting the availability of certain firearms or restricting the number of rounds in a magazine, or allowing more background checks punishes law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to stop those who don’t follow the laws anyway. It seems kind of like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
I think you know that these efforts have failed in the past to stop mass shootings. An assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine occurred.
Instead I propose the following . . .

School Marshals
Allow school staff members to carry concealed in the schools. This idea is not so radical as some would have us believe. In every school I have taught in there have been staff members who were former military or had shooting experience. If these people or any other staff members who were willing would be properly screened and sent for thorough training they could be effective in stopping these school shootings. The training should be very thorough. Something similar to what the air marshals have. These “school marshals” should be required to conceal carry their firearm very discreetly. Only the administrator should even be aware that they are carrying. Kind of like the air marshal program, but in schools. They should be required to carry the firearm on their person. Not in a purse or in their desk drawer! They should receive a stipend for this service, have their firearm and practice ammunition provided and be trained at the governments expense. I think the NRA has already indicated that they would do the training for free. Custodians would be perfect candidates for this program. They are not tied down to a classroom and are used to being seen all over the school. These “school marshals” would not be policemen to intervene in normal everyday student discipline problems. They would only activate if an active shooting occurs. Other staff members would not even know who the “school marshals” are. Every school would not have to have these “school marshals”. The potential mass shooter would not know which schools have them or not! The “Gun Free Zone” signs would need to come down!
Thousands of people currently carry concealed firearms without incident or accident all over the country. This is a proposal that I feel would really help stop school shootings just like it has stopped airplane hijackings.

Stricter penalties for using firearms in crime
Another proposal would be to pass laws making life harder for criminals who break firearms laws already in existence.

Anyone caught with an illegal firearm should have 5 years added to their prison sentence.
Anyone using a firearm in a crime would have 10 years added to their sentence.
Anyone who uses a firearm in a violent crime or murder should have 20 years added on to their sentence.

Please consider making life harder for criminals, not for law abiding citizens and gun owners!

I appreciate you taking the time to consider my letter.

In closing I would like your thoughts on my proposals. I would also like to know how you intend to vote on any assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions and further background check legislation.

I received a PM from a member suggesting I post a copy of my wife's email here in this sticky thread (thanks - you know who you are). Somehow I missed this thread. So, here it is in its entirety. Feel free to use it as a template if you wish. I would recommend you change some things to make it your own. We don't want too many "clone" letters out there.

Your Honor,

I have of late been silent on the issue of Gun Control, but I feel it is now time for me to speak up. The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School brought home in an alarming manner how fragile life is, and how easily it can be ripped from us by a small but very violent element in our society.

These children were all innocent victims. They had their whole lives ahead of them. However they will now never have the opportunity to grow up to become the men and women they were meant to be. They will never be able to experience the ups and downs of life.

As a parent, my heart aches for the parents of the children killed in that incident, and others like it. I cannot even begin to understand what they must be experiencing. I admit I shed my share of tears when I heard of the atrocity that occurred on that day. A parent should never have to bury a child. It's simply unnatural.

Now, we come to how best to learn from this horrid event so that we can prevent it from happening again. This is a very emotionally charged issue for many, and so we must try to separate our emotional response and our logical thinking, so that we can take actions that will make a positive difference, rather than simply taking arbitrary actions, simply so we can feel better about "at least doing something."

Many politicians are proposing much stricter Gun Control laws, including a ban on "Assault Weapons" and larger capacity magazines. This has been the response of choice by many of our elected officials for the past two or three decades, when there has been a multiple shooting situation.

It is certainly an understandable response from an emotional stance. I do understand how our human nature causes us to want somebody, or in this case something to blame. However, as I said earlier, we should be separating the emotional from the logical. As I'm sure you're aware, "Assault Weapons" account for a very (very!) small number of the total deaths involving firearms. So, as a point of logical thought, how will this have any real impact on violence in our nation?

The same can be said for "high capacity" magazines. It has been said that if a shooter had to deal with a smaller capacity magazine then (s)he would have to reload more often and therefore may be able to wreak less destruction. Do you know how quickly a magazine can be switched out? Very quickly, I assure you. Therefore, magazine capacity is not the issue either.

The real issue we as a nation should be concentrating on is dealing with a small but ever increasingly violent element in our society. This element consists mainly of the mentally ill and recidivist criminals.

Make no mistake, I have no illusions that these are easy issues with which to deal. Quite the contrary. These are complex "larger picture" issues which consist of many smaller but equally important ones. We must look at how we deal with people, particularly young people, who show signs of mental illness and a propensity for violence. We must look at how these cases are, or as in most situations, are not reported. We must strengthen our mental health system so that doctors and therapists and, in particular, parents have a way of effectively dealing with a situation so that a child, or anyone in need of help can get it.

We must look at how we deal with the criminal element in our society. We must stop the current revolving door policies of our judicial and penal systems. The vast majority of crime, and most certainly violent crime, is perpetrated by recidivists. These people get back out on the street and in many cases within days, or even hours, they are back to committing the same crimes that got them locked up in jail in the first place.

There are more issues we need to effectively deal with but I will stop here, as an attempt to keep this correspondence fairly brief.

In closing, I stand against any and all "Gun Control" measures. The gun control debate serves no actual purpose, except the (hopefully unintended) one of diverting our attention from the real issues that are at the root of terrible events such as the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook.

I ask you to vote "NO" on any Gun Control measure(s) that may come before you as a legislator.

guns only for hunting ?

why do are elected dc members think the second amendment has only hunting in mind, i use them for protection, target practice, intrution i want the upper hand with criminals. this is a distraction for not getting a budget for the next 4 years which they sould be doing, second amendment didn't say anything about using guns just for hunting,i know laws for the only the law abiding.